Can a Catholic disagree about Global Warming?

[cathdoki]

And I heard some 3 or 4 years ago from NOAA scientists speaking anonymously for fear of losing their jobs, that there was a chilling effect over there against employees who accept global warming science and that AGW is happening. That’s the major “cooling” happening on planet earth now.

I’m a little confused about what you’re saying above. Are you saying that those opposed to AGW were afraid to lose their jobs?

If you really do work for NOAA, you should know that AGW has to do with the energy imbalance, the global average temp over a longer period, and not whether it’s colder in Podunk this winter, or hotter in Klonkdunk this summer.

I specifically mentioned that one of my posts.

Recent stats say so far this year (1st 6 months) have been the hottest on record. But as I said, you have to look at the long time trend.

Agreed. I also said that there are many climatological cycles of varying duration overlapping each other. All the time.

The AGW is complex, bec we are also emitting aerosols along with our GHG emissions, and these have a temporary cooling effect. Also there are “sloshings” as James Hansen refers to them, meaning natural regional fluctuations or anomalies in temperatures, such as el nino/la nina. This past winter we had a strongly negative arctic oscillation, in which the normal patter of wind going west to east changed to north to south, bringing colder than usual weather down south to some mid-latitude areas, while making some areas of the arctic 7-10C warmer than usual.

Yes, the AO worked quite well together with the negative NAO that was also very persistent. The neg NAO trumped (and almost always does) the negative PNA which should have worked together to provide a relatively mild winter in the east. Instead it was cold with record snows in the mid Atlantic States.

Of course, El Nino can go either way for the northeastern U.S.

The main point is the global average temperature is increasing (even despite being somewhat suppressed by the aerosol effect.

People need to read the peer-reviewed science and the IPCC reports (based mainly on peer-reviewed science) on this, don’t take my word for it. Just bec the deniosphere says the IPCC and peer-review articles are bunk, doesn’t make it so – let the denialists go out and actually do science, then come back with their reports.

They are doing it. But they are suppressed in the media by the pro AGW elite.

The Church is clearly against killing people willy nilly through AGW or any other method. It’s not abortion v. AGW.

“The scientific evidence for global warming and for humanity’s role in the increase of greenhouse gasses becomes ever more unimpeachable, as the IPCC findings are going to suggest; and such activity has a profound relevance, not just for the environment, but in ethical, economic, social and political terms as well. The consequences of climate change are being felt not only in the environment, but in the entire socio-economic system and, as seen in the findings of numerous reports already available, they will impact first and foremost the poorest and weakest who, even if they are among the least responsible for global warming, are the most vulnerable because they have limited resources or live in areas at greater risk.” vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2007/documents/rc_seg-st_20070510_ecosoc_en.html

That’s an opinion.

 

[cathdoki]

Oh, I forgot.

Have you read The Satanic Gases by Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling?

and I’m sure you will disagree with this site:

www.icecap.us

 

[Ender]

The main point is the global average temperature is increasing (even despite being somewhat suppressed by the aerosol effect.

If this is your main point then it would help if you got it right. NOAA’s 2009 Annual State of the Climate Report said this:

"The trend after removing ENSO (the “ENSO-adjusted” trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise."

That is, NOAA found the global average temperature changed by 0.00 degrees in the previous decade, once the El Nino - Southern Oscillation effects had been accounted for. What part of zero indicates increased warming to you?

Ender

 

[RWMorris]

… but I also know that we have been terrible stewards of God’s creation, especially in the last 100 years. … But we’ve not done a good job taking care of God’s creation. He gave it to us to use wisely. I don’t think we’ve done that…

I would have to disagree with you on this. I think western civilization has done a pretty good job of caring for the environment. Yes, we could have done better, and we can do better in the future. But look at the evidence of the past 100 years.

There are no more famines in the world, except those caused by politics.

Life expectancy has almost doubled.

Disease control has gotten so good that we now call the deaths of a few thousand people a pandemic.

There is much more forest land in North America than 100 years ago.

Many of the world’s worst diseases have failed to be controlled as a result of cultural or political decisions.

Once again I’ll state, Yes, we could have done better, and we can do better in the future. But the environment has gotten better, not worse.

 

[cathdoki]

I would have to disagree with you on this. I think western civilization has done a pretty good job of caring for the environment. Yes, we could have done better, and we can do better in the future. But look at the evidence of the past 100 years.

There are no more famines in the world, except those caused by politics.

Life expectancy has almost doubled.

Disease control has gotten so good that we now call the deaths of a few thousand people a pandemic.

There is much more forest land in North America than 100 years ago.

Many of the world’s worst diseases have failed to be controlled as a result of cultural or political decisions.

Once again I’ll state, Yes, we could have done better, and we can do better in the future. But the environment has gotten better, not worse.

Hi,

I understand what you are saying. We have done better than Eastern Europe and Asia did under communism, but we’ve still had problems. Some serious.

There are not too many waterways in the U.S. that are clean. Many are cleaner than they were, but still not clean. While I do not believe in AGW, I do believe that we are pumping incredible amounts of junk into the atmosphere. We take trash from places like NYC and dump them 100 miles out at sea. We are concerned about the oil spill in the Gulf, but never hear about the travesty with the oil spill in Nigeria. It’s decades old. Land left nearly useless unless and major clean up is done. Small rivers completely dead, where locals would harvest fish and crabs and other food.

So we are slowly getting better, but we’ve got a long way to go.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Hi,

I understand what you are saying. We have done better than Eastern Europe and Asia did under communism, but we’ve still had problems. Some serious.

There are not too many waterways in the U.S. that are clean. Many are cleaner than they were, but still not clean. While I do not believe in AGW, I do believe that we are pumping incredible amounts of junk into the atmosphere. We take trash from places like NYC and dump them 100 miles out at sea. We are concerned about the oil spill in the Gulf, but never hear about the travesty with the oil spill in Nigeria. It’s decades old. Land left nearly useless unless and major clean up is done. Small rivers completely dead, where locals would harvest fish and crabs and other food.

So we are slowly getting better, but we’ve got a long way to go.

[Just me talking: NYC does NOT dump trash out to sea!]

[As far as I can recall, NYC only dumps sewage sludge out to sea.]

[But then, that’s a government agency/ instrumentality of the government and the government does what ever they want. They should do what Milwaukee does: bag it and sell it as fertilizer. Of course, Milwaukee sewage sludge has some extra stuff: brewery leftovers.]

The people currently running Washington say that the problem is that the United States is the cause of the pollution. Not Nigeria.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Global Warming is supposed to be about science.

So, getting back on topic: here is some more science:

La Nina continues to wax and temperatures continue to drop. It will be a cold winter here in North America.

drroyspencer.com/2010/07/global-sea-surface-temperature-update-the-cooling-continues/

I edited some of the comments, but they suggest that we are in for very cold weather over this coming winter and perhaps for many winters to come. Weather or climate???

Some reflections on the graph above:

It is interesting! Nevertheless, NOAA feeds us with tales about the hottest year, even hotter then 1998, and the fastest warming over the decade though the trend was slightly declining. I believe they are going to invent a homogenization that will prove that the South America and Pacific are actually warming within La Nina time.

After examining the figure, would Al Gore conclude that the sea temperature has triggered La Nina? Pardon the sarcasm.

Is there a graph that goes back further? i would be curious to see when the last time (besides 2008) that the nino 3.4 got this low. Of course, i think i can just look at the data page eh?

To my mind, data sets from a different source then the Aqua would be requested and these sources are from the hockey stick maker workshops.

It is interesting that this current oceanic negative thermal excursion is occurring at a point in time when solar irradiation is proceeding off the Solar Sunspot Cycle #23 minimum. Per theory, La Nina like conditions allow marginally greater oceanic thermal absorption due to reduced winds. This should be a period of oceanic heat accumulation, however it appears that magnitude of this process will likely be diminished. The implication is: the expected low output solar cycle co-incident with cool oceanic periodic oscillation conditions will affect a planetary climate regime excursion.

Does anyone want to bet on which way the average global temperature is headed? How about the trend for the next 20 years? Anyone?

As per forecast ideas from back in Feb

1. la Nina coming on
2. hot summer, big hurricane season
   ( hurricane season will cool atlantic basin, hot summer is simply analogging low solar and reversing ninos…1995,1998,2007 etc)
3. Global temp crashes to post 97-98 nino levels by March 2011. with 50% chance of it reaching as low as post Pinitubo levels for at least 3 months of next year ( shorter term forecast
4. by 2030, global temps back to where it was at start of sat era, which btw was near
   the end of the cold PDO
5. Interesting ditty: soi has not been this high for July since the cold PDO of the 50-s through mid 70s.

note: The crashing of global temps over the next year, to levels not seen since the 90s, and perhaps even the earlier part, should put to rest the co2 argument. Since 1998 we have had a 5% increase in co2, since 1993 closer to 7 or 8. If co2 is the driver, its intuitive we have no business seeing the temps go down to those levels. Since one will be able to note the temp drop occurring after the nina, the intuitive inference has to be its the ocean that is a prime driver… in the shorter term, the enso shows us this, but in the longer term, the pdo, amo etc will be the bigger players.

 

[chain]

Global warming reminds me a lot about a conversation I had with the head of the local Humane Society a decade or so ago. She was laughing about the impossibility of cities running no kill animal shelters. The Humane Society shelters are no kill out of political expediency - people feel good donating to a no kill shelter.

They could save 4x as many animals with the same budget if they could accept a tiny percentage of animals were not adoptable - but without the no-kill policy they would not have a budget to operate with.

Global Warming/Climate Change is about political expediency. It gets research grants, it moves public opinion. Pollution kills, without the added end of the world part, was just not as powerful of message.

 

[lynnvinc]

If this is your main point then it would help if you got it right. NOAA’s 2009 Annual State of the Climate Report said this:

"The trend after removing ENSO (the “ENSO-adjusted” trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise."

That is, NOAA found the global average temperature changed by 0.00 degrees in the previous decade, once the El Nino - Southern Oscillation effects had been accounted for. What part of zero indicates increased warming to you?

Ender

As I said above, you have to look at long term trends, many decades, not just one. And you have to look at all the factors, which the scientists are doing, including the fact that we have been in a solar minimum for that past decade, which should have led to significant cooling, sans our added GHGs. The “global warming pause” hoax has been roundly debunked – see here. They even gave the climate data to 4 statisticians to find a trend, without telling what type of data they were, and all 4 came back with an increasing trend.

Once they have accounted for the cooling affects of the aerosols, volcanos, etc, over the past century – which should have put us in a cooling trend, sans our GHG emissions, they find instead a warming trend of about .8C or 1.44F (and a .6C increase in the past 3 decades). Now that may seem like a laughably small amount for the less educated – those who confuse climate with weather – but it is a clear warning that WE are having impact. The last ice age was about 4C cooler. The end-Permian warming, which killed 95% of life on earth, was about 6C warmer. It is now projected by scientists that it could get to 4C warmer by the 2060s (BAU, worst-case scenario) and 5C by 2090s – see & listen to the 4 Degrees & Beyond Conference in Oxford last Sept, at eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/.

We already have 2.4C warming “in the pipes” from our past GHG emissions, even if we were to go down to zero emissions today, according to a 2008 study: Ramanathan, V., and Y. Feng. 2008. “On Avoiding Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference with the Climate System: Formidable Challenges Ahead.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105.38: 14245-14250.

If we get to 3C warmer, then nature’s processes will take over, melting and releasing the vast stores of methane trapped in ocean and permafrost ice, and eventually push us up to 6C. A few cutting edge scientists even suggest we could, along with all that methane stored-in-ice loaded gun, shoot the climate into runaway conditions, as on Venus, ending all life on planet earth.

Why take that risk with life on earth and with our immortal souls, when mitigation can save us so much money and help the economy? I just don’t understand you people.

 

[cathdoki]

As I said above, you have to look at long term trends, many decades, not just one. And you have to look at all the factors, which the scientists are doing, including the fact that we have been in a solar minimum for that past decade, which should have led to significant cooling, sans our added GHGs. The “global warming pause” hoax has been roundly debunked – see here. They even gave the climate data to 4 statisticians to find a trend, without telling what type of data they were, and all 4 came back with an increasing trend.

Once they have accounted for the cooling affects of the aerosols, volcanos, etc, over the past century – which should have put us in a cooling trend, sans our GHG emissions, they find instead a warming trend of about .8C or 1.44F (and a .6C increase in the past 3 decades). Now that may seem like a laughably small amount for the less educated – those who confuse climate with weather – but it is a clear warning that WE are having impact. The last ice age was about 4C cooler. The end-Permian warming, which killed 95% of life on earth, was about 6C warmer. It is now projected by scientists that it could get to 4C warmer by the 2060s (BAU, worst-case scenario) and 5C by 2090s – see & listen to the 4 Degrees & Beyond Conference in Oxford last Sept, at eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/.

We already have 2.4C warming “in the pipes” from our past GHG emissions, even if we were to go down to zero emissions today, according to a 2008 study: Ramanathan, V., and Y. Feng. 2008. “On Avoiding Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference with the Climate System: Formidable Challenges Ahead.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105.38: 14245-14250.

If we get to 3C warmer, then nature’s processes will take over, melting and releasing the vast stores of methane trapped in ocean and permafrost ice, and eventually push us up to 6C. A few cutting edge scientists even suggest we could, along with all that methane stored-in-ice loaded gun, shoot the climate into runaway conditions, as on Venus, ending all life on planet earth.

Why take that risk with life on earth and with our immortal souls, when mitigation can save us so much money and help the economy? I just don’t understand you people.

Now see, there ya go. You’re posting a whole bunch of extremes. BTW, what did climate models from 10 and 20 years ago predict for the increase in global temps by now?

 

[lynnvinc]

I’m a little confused about what you’re saying above. Are you saying that those opposed to AGW were afraid to lose their jobs?

It was during the time senior climate scientists were being muzzled over at NOAA, NASA, and EPA from speaking about climate science facts; a junior scientist at NOAA said he was afraid to lose his job if he said anything about AGW (that it is happening).

Yes, the AO worked quite well together with the negative NAO that was also very persistent. The neg NAO trumped (and almost always does) the negative PNA which should have worked together to provide a relatively mild winter in the east. Instead it was cold with record snows in the mid Atlantic States. Of course, El Nino can go either way for the northeastern U.S.

It was a strongly negative arctic oscillation (AO), so that might help explain the weather pattern we got. But even is you are suggesting that we are headed into an ice age instead of GW, don’t you think it would be prudent to save all those fossil fuels for our progeny, who will need them to keep warm. Either way we should leave it in the ground.

I also heard recently from a scientist that such negative AOs might become more common in a warming world. Just fine! The one silver thread in AGW was that we would get ever rarer killing frosts here in the Rio Grande Valley, since our growing season is in Fall, Winter, & Spring, and NOT in July-Aug (when it is way too hot). If that pans out about GW leading to more frequent AO, the calc that N latitudes would see increased crop production to 2050 (after which there is projected a steep decline) might not pan out as expected either.

I said: Let the denialists go out and actually do science, then come back with their reports, to which you replied:

They are doing it. But they are suppressed in the media by the pro AGW elite.

The media have been exceedingly atrocious re AGW over the past 20 years, not even mentioning it when the 1st studies achieved .05 (95% confidence) on AGW in 1995. The media stink to high heaven on reporting about AGW. Funded as they are by vested interests, same as the denialist org and scientists. They can’t make up for 20 years of neglect of AGW reporting. Various climate/earth systems tipping points might be coming soon (in the next few years or decades), and the harms in the pipes (assuming some tech doesn’t come up with a CO2 vacuum cleaner) are terrible. Great harm is already in the pipes.

They say the media are bad on AGW bec AGW is such a slow moving condition, and they want conflict and dramatic events. They say the media have used the “pro-con” format, as if AGW were an opinion, bec that’s just their format. Well, it is NOT an opinion. It has been scientifically well established, and is based on myriads of studies from many different angles. The science is very robust, and I’m sure people well educated in the sciences know that. Surely they understand that AGW science is more than well enough established for us to pursue a strong mitigation path (which will also help us financiallly). How much scientific confidence would does a person need? 99%? 101%?

We’re playing Russian roulette, 19 chambers loaded on a 20 shooter. Why this madness?

 

[Ender]

As I said above, you have to look at long term trends, many decades, not just one.

Not according to NOAA. They also stated that, although none of the climate models had predicted a decade without warming and although such a period could be contained within the models, a fifteen year period without warming would break all of the models. We don’t have much longer to wait.

They even gave the climate data to 4 statisticians to find a trend, without telling what type of data they were, and all 4 came back with an increasing trend.

Is it your position then that NOAA doesn’t know how to measure temperatures or that they don’t understand statistics? By the way, do you know what data were used? Was it with or without the ENSO effects? With it there is a (very slight) warming trend; without it there is none.

Why take that risk with life on earth and with our immortal souls, when mitigation can save us so much money and help the economy? I just don’t understand you people.

Mitigation - even if it were possible - would not save money, it would be horrifically expensive and devastate the economy.

Ender

 

[markbrumbaugh]

Going back to the stone age, by ceasing the use of fossil energy, will “willy-nilly” kill more people than CO2 ever thought of. We owe our standard of living, including life span to the modern conveniences brought about through the use of abundant cheap energy.

Is “willy nilly” a technical term, or something in the bible? I missed it.

 

[Ender]

But even is you are suggesting that we are headed into an ice age instead of GW, don’t you think it would be prudent to save all those fossil fuels for our progeny, who will need them to keep warm.

We have a 500 year supply of coal and have recently discovered trillions of barrels of natural gas, and this doesn’t even consider the trillions of barrels of oil locked up in oil shale deposits. We will have harnessed fusion power long before our progeny become perturbed because we used up all their fossil fuels.

Surely they understand that AGW science is more than well enough established for us to pursue a strong mitigation path (which will also help us financiallly).

What mitigation efforts do you support, what would they mitigate, and how would they be financially beneficial?

We’re playing Russian roulette, 19 chambers loaded on a 20 shooter. Why this madness?

We are being harassed by Chicken Littles screaming that the sky is falling and the only way to save ourselves is to put a gun to our head and pull the trigger.

Ender

 

[cathdoki]

It was a strongly negative arctic oscillation (AO), so that might help explain the weather pattern we got. But even is you are suggesting that we are headed into an ice age instead of GW, don’t you think it would be prudent to save all those fossil fuels for our progeny, who will need them to keep warm. Either way we should leave it in the ground.

I admitted the strongly negative AO played a role. But for eastern North America the strongly negative NAO dominated. If that would have positive, we would very likely seen milder weather.

Also, did I say we’re heading toward an ice age? 30 to 35 years ago I believe it was My Hansen that said that.

 

[PAboy57]

Sure Catholics are allowed to debate and disagree about issues. One issue in which there should be no disagreement on is getting things right with God.

This world is getting so complex that it seems to me things are completly out of control and you haven’t seen anything yet.

In many places we have removed God from the home, school, law, books and government and who knows where else. Some scientists and doctors, etc think they are little gods running around telling everyone what we need to do. This generation just like past ones think we are headed for destruction.

If we want to make this world a better place, we need to get down on our knees and beg for forgiveness, repent and bring Jesus Christ back into everywhere we kicked Him out. Then and only then we might have a chance of using God’s resources the way they were intended. We have read the story how God turned His back on His own chosen people and they made bricks for quite sometime. The good young USA needs a new outlook on Jesus and make things right if we want a bright future for our grand children. The book was already written we just need to re-read and start implementing.

A simple guy’s 2 cents.

 

[Calliso]

It was during the time senior climate scientists were being muzzled over at NOAA, NASA, and EPA from speaking about climate science facts; a junior scientist at NOAA said he was afraid to lose his job if he said anything about AGW (that it is happening).

It was a strongly negative arctic oscillation (AO), so that might help explain the weather pattern we got. But even is you are suggesting that we are headed into an ice age instead of GW, don’t you think it would be prudent to save all those fossil fuels for our progeny, who will need them to keep warm. Either way we should leave it in the ground.

I also heard recently from a scientist that such negative AOs might become more common in a warming world. Just fine! The one silver thread in AGW was that we would get ever rarer killing frosts here in the Rio Grande Valley, since our growing season is in Fall, Winter, & Spring, and NOT in July-Aug (when it is way too hot). If that pans out about GW leading to more frequent AO, the calc that N latitudes would see increased crop production to 2050 (after which there is projected a steep decline) might not pan out as expected either.

I said: Let the denialists go out and actually do science, then come back with their reports, to which you replied:
The media have been exceedingly atrocious re AGW over the past 20 years, not even mentioning it when the 1st studies achieved .05 (95% confidence) on AGW in 1995. The media stink to high heaven on reporting about AGW. Funded as they are by vested interests, same as the denialist org and scientists. They can’t make up for 20 years of neglect of AGW reporting. Various climate/earth systems tipping points might be coming soon (in the next few years or decades), and the harms in the pipes (assuming some tech doesn’t come up with a CO2 vacuum cleaner) are terrible. Great harm is already in the pipes.

They say the media are bad on AGW bec AGW is such a slow moving condition, and they want conflict and dramatic events. They say the media have used the “pro-con” format, as if AGW were an opinion, bec that’s just their format. Well, it is NOT an opinion. It has been scientifically well established, and is based on myriads of studies from many different angles. The science is very robust, and I’m sure people well educated in the sciences know that. Surely they understand that AGW science is more than well enough established for us to pursue a strong mitigation path (which will also help us financiallly). How much scientific confidence would does a person need? 99%? 101%?

We’re playing Russian roulette, 19 chambers loaded on a 20 shooter. Why this madness?

You know in my experience the media if anything has been in general more on the side of the skeptics/denalists then anything else. I mean if you were to listen to the general media you would probably believe that AGW is only believed by a handful of scientists and that the numbers were fudged and blah blah blah. And your definately right on the fact that the media wants conflict and dramatic events. Its like with the whole climate gate thing. That was pretty big in the media for awhile. Yet in the aftermath I have heard very little. I am sure if the investigations had found the scientists guilty the media would have been all over it. I read this recently too skepticalscience.com/visual-disconnect-between-scientists-media-public.html notice how closely the public opinion and the media opinion is.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

More problems with the banning of carbon dioxide.

The following was just received and will appear next week in the back issues of TWTW at www.sepp.org

---

THIS WEEK:
By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

On Thursday afternoon, the ten groups that petitioned EPA to reconsider its finding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and welfare received notice that the petitions have been denied. This was not unexpected.

The notice quotes the May 2010 report of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, Advancing the Science of Climate Change:

“[T]here is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing, and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities… . Climate change… poses significant risks for – and in many cases is already affecting – a broad range of human and natural systems.”

The June 5, 2010 TWTW’ Science Editorial discussed this report. “The report … claims that the climate is warming and that the cause is human.” “The first claim of this federally funded $6-million exercise is meaningless and trivial, the second claim is almost surely wrong. Their recommendation is that the United States should put a price on carbon to staunch emissions of CO2; it is pointless, counterproductive, and very costly.”

Clearly, the leadership for the National Academy of Sciences has placed that venerable organization in the camp of those demanding expansion of government power and control over the American economy. This entire exercise requires abandoning knowledge of the earth’s history.

The EPA notice opens with this sentence: “EPA determined in December 2009 that climate change caused by emissions of greenhouse gases threatens the public’s health and the environment.” [Bold face added] The Constitution discusses protecting public health and welfare, not the more nebulous term the environment which could be used to justify regulation of virtually all human activity.

The response to the petitions is some 590 pages long. In addition to the NAS study the notice references other studies including the IPCC Assessment Report, the 2009 study by the U.S. Global Change Research Program and a NOAA study released on July 28, 2010, no doubt especially prepared for the occasion. Also the notice references the three British inquiries into Climategate, the Netherlands assessment of the IPCC report, and the Penn State investigation of Michael Mann. It will not be a quiet August for those who have petitioned the courts to review the EPA endangerment finding.

 

[lynnvinc]

Now see, there ya go. You’re posting a whole bunch of extremes. BTW, what did climate models from 10 and 20 years ago predict for the increase in global temps by now?

Glad you asked. They were right on the dot, even predictions of 35 years ago. See here how Dr. Wallace Broecker predicted a .8C warming for the 20th c, right on the dot. Of course, the knowledge and models weren’t nearly as sophisticated and high-powered as they are today, so he left out variables, like the aerosol effect (which has a net cooling effect), and he underestimated climate sensitivity to CO2, but these omissions/mistakes in both directions cancelled each other out, so his prediction was right on the dot. (Also see here for a recent discussion of this.)

Dr. James Hansen’s 1988 most plausible and realistic (it included volcanic eruptions) projection, also panned out very close to actual temps; see here.

And in 1896 Arrhenius (a Swedish) scientist developed the natural greenhouse effect theory, and predicted that increased CO2 from industrialization would cause global warming. At first he overestimated climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 to be 5-6C, then with more knowledge later estimated it much lower, at 2.1C, but within the range accepted today (2 - 4.5C).

And even earlier, in 1824, Fourier came up with the same theories.

Hope that helps.

Science is an ever changing and improving process. Scientists know more now than they did a few decades ago, or a few centuries ago, and are able to make ever better projections.

 

[cathdoki]

Glad you asked. They were right on the dot, even predictions of 35 years ago. See here how Dr. Wallace Broecker predicted a .8C warming for the 20th c, right on the dot. Of course, the knowledge and models weren’t nearly as sophisticated and high-powered as they are today, so he left out variables, like the aerosol effect (which has a net cooling effect), and he underestimated climate sensitivity to CO2, but these omissions/mistakes in both directions cancelled each other out, so his prediction was right on the dot. (Also see here for a recent discussion of this.)

Dr. James Hansen’s 1988 most plausible and realistic (it included volcanic eruptions) projection, also panned out very close to actual temps; see here.

And in 1896 Arrhenius (a Swedish) scientist developed the natural greenhouse effect theory, and predicted that increased CO2 from industrialization would cause global warming.

And even earlier, in 1824, Fourier came up with the same theories.

Hope that helps.

Science is an ever changing and improving process. Scientists know more now than they did a few decades ago, or a few centuries ago, and are able to make ever better projections.

That is absolute baloney. We were supposed to be 2c warmer than we are. It has already been documented in this thread that you’ve presented false material from NOAA. That is what continues to make pro AGW people considered fraudulent. You can’t mislead people here. There intelligent enough to know what is fabricated and what is not.